Support NeoGAF

[DragonNCM]

My favourite game last generation don't have sequel because GAS shit what Sony think will fill their pockets.
I hope will be dead on arrival.
FU Sony !!!

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Hot Take: I miss PS3-era SIE/Sony.

Two years ago Bend said this :

“We are currently working on a new IP that includes multiplayer and builds upon the open-world systems of Days Gone, but brings you a whole new world that we are extremely excited to craft for you. We cannot wait to reveal it to you when the time is right.”

The way they are talking about it made me think that he would be a single player game with a multiplayer mode maybe something like Ghost of Tsushima.

Apparently from David Jaffe, they are not using Unreal Engine 5 but the Decima Engine for their new IP and he seem to be right because from the LinkedIn of someone working at Bend where was the mention of the Decima engine among the tools that he’s worked with for this project.

Other interesting information the studio will utilize motion matching technology to implement more realistic and seamless animations in its next title

https://segmentnext.com/days-gone-decima/

All talk and plans change.

With how communication's been the past couple of years, I'll believe it when I see it. Same with the new Cory Balrog game. Sony have shifted away from revealing and building intrigue/hype for their games years in advance so I have no reason to think anything of project names and generic descriptors until actual gameplay is shown.

Basically the same as with every other company these days.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Interesting.

I generally consider gameplay loop to be something outside core gunplay/combat etc.

All the examples you mentioned, i consider their gameplay loop to be pretty complex and likely satisfying (haven’t played most of them).

In that sense, gameplay loop of Helldivers invariably includes it’s progression system outside core combat. Thats where I hit the wall mostly. Mostly cause I have always played SP games. But a lot of my friends are into games like Helldivers 2 so obviously it varies.

What is usually refered as gameplay loop are the 'cycles' a player goes through in a game. On a more heavily story driven and scripted game it'd be something like "complete challenge set-piece -> watch cutscene -> go to next set-piece". On something like a souls game or common ARPGs, which are more mechanically driven, it'd be "explore -> find enemy -> defeat enemy -> get loot -> explore" with of course a few other smaller loops outside of this process.

The progression system refers to how these loops evolve over time. Defeating enemies and exploring in a loop makes you stronger and lead you to stronger enemies and more areas to explore. Completing a set-piece rewards you with story content and leads you to more challenges and bits of story.

I think the rift here is that when the gameplay loop doesn't interest the player enough (or isn't all that good to begin with, like many AAA games), they need the progression system - aka the "rewards" - to be more present (which involves developing more content). Single player games can rely on this more easily as it doesn't matter if the player reaches the summit of the progression in 10 or 100 hours (the summit being the highest level, the end of the story, unlocking all content, etc).

GAAS on the other hand need a high number of players to keep playing for longer and more frequently. They developed their own array of tricks to achieve this, be stretching the progression thinner, producing a whole bunch of small breadcrumbs to throw at the player over time, multiple social aspects, etc. Many traditionally SP players see through such tricks or aren't affected by them since they're more used to well paced progression, whereas "the normies" fall for them more easily. Of course, there's also the people who genuinely enjoy the loop, but for any given game those people are on the fewer side.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Hot Take: I miss PS3-era SIE/Sony.

Even early Ps3/Ps4 era's were infinitely more bountiful than the garbage we're being fed this generation.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Even early Ps3/Ps4 era's were infinitely more bountiful than the garbage we're being fed this generation.

I wouldn't say this gen's stuff is "garbage", but there was definitely a vibe and variety to 1P output during PS3 and early PS4 era that's just gone now. And I miss that vibe & variety a lot.

Also despite what people want to keep saying, no, random indies don't "make up for it".

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You are forgetting a little but important detail: Experience.

Too many successful multiplayer games from studios with no experience for that to matter.

Sony & Bungie already looked at what they're working on and gave it their stamp of approval.

They know more about games than you or I. A lot more.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

I wouldn't say this gen's stuff is "garbage", but there was definitely a vibe and variety to 1P output during PS3 and early PS4 era that's just gone now. And I miss that vibe & variety a lot.

Also despite what people want to keep saying, no, random indies don't "make up for it".

I just think the quality of titles have been rather poor or just not that exciting? (For me anyway) Maybe it's age catching up but I have been less engaged with the releases of many games this Gen.
There have been some great bangers but the release cadence isn't consistent.

 

[radewagon]

Everyone and their mom making Live Service games, and most of them bomb.
When will they understand that the market is saturated?

It's such a dumb minefield to throw so much money at. I can get wanting to buy some figurative lottery tickets by releasing 1 per year or something, but the amount of live service games being created is ridiculous.

A while back, Phil Spencer said the following:
We lost the worst generation to lose in the Xbox One generation, where everybody built their digital library of games,

Obviously he wasn't talking about live service games, but the effect is similar. Anyone releasing a live service game right now is playing catch up and needs to compete not just with the game the potential player is already playing but ALSO the investment (time + money) that said gamer has put into their current live service game. Live Service gamers have already built their library of games.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I just think the quality of titles have been rather poor or just not that exciting? (For me anyway) Maybe it's age catching up but I have been less engaged with the releases of many games this Gen.
There have been some great bangers but the release cadence isn't consistent.

Oh for sure there are less 1P games, or at least it would feel that way, particularly in terms of exclusivity. I only realized recently that the number of 1P that's still exclusive to the console is countable on one hand. And if just talking current-gen only 1P offerings, that drops down to two games: Astro's Playroom and Spiderman 2.

I'd put Demon's Souls Remake in there too but, well, that Nvidia leak has been scarily accurate for Sony PC ports and Demon's Souls, GT7 & GOW Ragnarok are all up there. At least one of those is also happening this year, probably GT7 (and even so, GT7 & GOW Ragnarok are also cross-gen titles). It feels like by the time Sony release a new 1P AAA exclusive for PS5, all of their current-gen titles will already be on PC.

I just personally think that's a really bad look for a platform holder that claims they want to prioritize their console and I think over time, if they get more aggressive with ports to PC for non-GAAS titles, it'll make the 3P timed exclusives for the console look even more unfavorable. Because it's like, you're going out of your way to basically de-prioritize your own console but want 3P to limit themselves to your console instead? I honestly think that's a big reason Microsoft got flack over Rise of the Tomb Raider (well part of the reason), because IIRC Quantum Break was either Day 1 on PC or released there very shortly after coming to the console, but they wanted a full year timed exclusivity on a 3P game?

Anyway I don't want to spill over into a ramble because this conversation over SIE's GAAS strategy & PC ports and all of that has so many points that could be touched on. But yeah, release cadence this generation for 1P internal studio content just hasn't been what one'd of thought it'd be. And I'm not exactly enthused with Insomniac's roadmap basically being dominated by Marvel IP because I already know those will probably be relatively "safe" games and probably have even shorter windows of console exclusivity before getting ported to PC, among other things.

Though in terms of release cadence they've been among the best 1P-wise.

 

[solidus12]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's such a dumb minefield to throw so much money at. I can get wanting to buy some figurative lottery tickets by releasing 1 per year or something, but the amount of live service games being created is ridiculous.

A while back, Phil Spencer said the following:
We lost the worst generation to lose in the Xbox One generation, where everybody built their digital library of games,

Obviously he wasn't talking about live service games, but the effect is similar. Anyone releasing a live service game right now is playing catch up and needs to compete not just with the game the potential player is already playing but ALSO the investment (time + money) that said gamer has put into their current live service game. Live Service gamers have already built their library of games.

As a Live Service gamer (I assume you're not) this couldn't be further from the truth.

I've probably played 30+ hours of the new season of Fortnite at this point. I've played that game since 2017. I can't wait the new batch of Live Service games to show up. I have no attachment to Fortnite at all, other than it's still the most fun I can have gaming in 2024.

This is the mentality of all Live Service gamers. You're creating a false paradigm about the medium in order to trick yourself into believing something. The idea that people are "locked to" one Live Service game is complete fabrication.

 

[Putyouinmyoven]

DOA

 

[radewagon]

As a Live Service gamer (I assume you're not) this couldn't be further from the truth.

I've probably played 30+ hours of the new season of Fortnite at this point. I've played that game since 2017. I can't wait the new batch of Live Service games to show up. I have no attachment to Fortnite at all, other than it's still the most fun I can have gaming in 2024.

This is the mentality of all Live Service gamers. You're creating a false paradigm about the medium in order to trick yourself into believing something. The idea that people are "locked to" one Live Service game is complete fabrication.

So, you can't wait for a new batch of games to show up, yet you're still playing fortnite? It's not like there's a dearth of new live service games. You could have easily left fortnite behind to play all manner of other games and, likely, you have, but you're still coming back to forntite. You've put 30+ hours of your time (possibly money) into a new season of a 7 year old game. You are saying you aren't locked to a game, but you clearly seem to be (for whatever reason) locked to this game. Locked to it, by choice, but still locked to it none the less.

 

[arkhamguy123]

Dead On Arrival.

Will lead to studio closure.

Calling it now.

Them and media molecules days have to be numbered

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So, you can't wait for a new batch of games to show up, yet you're still playing fortnite? It's not like there's a dearth of new live service games. You could have easily left fortnite behind to play all manner of other games and, likely, you have, but you're still coming back to forntite. You've put 30+ hours of your time (possibly money) into a new season of a 7 year old game. You are saying you aren't locked to a game, but you clearly seem to be (for whatever reason) locked to this game. Locked to it, by choice, but still locked to it none the less.

30 hrs into Fortnite @ $0.00 spent.
50 hrs into Helldivers 2 @ $40.00 spent
20 hrs into The Finals @ $10.00 spent

If that's "locked to Fortnite" then perhaps you can see why so many new Live Service games are blowing up.

Single player gamers have no idea what multiplayer gamers do.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

GAAS on the other hand need a high number of players to keep playing for longer and more frequently. They developed their own array of tricks to achieve this, be stretching the progression thinner, producing a whole bunch of small breadcrumbs to throw at the player over time, multiple social aspects, etc. Many traditionally SP players see through such tricks or aren't affected by them since they're more used to well paced progression, whereas "the normies" fall for them more easily. Of course, there's also the people who genuinely enjoy the loop, but for any given game those people are on the fewer side.

This is why I find campaign style GAAS games to be more my style.

Eg I am playing Payday 3 right now. Most would agree its a GAAS title.

What it actually is a series of 8 Hitman style missions called heists. If anyone likes Hitman games (my group loves them), they are going to have amazing time.

No artificial elongation of playtime. You can choose to play it once, buy more story content (heists) or play at higher difficulty. Entirely upto you.

Their gameplay loop is good enough that some 20-30k players are always playing Payday 2.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

GAAS on the other hand need a high number of players to keep playing for longer and more frequently. They developed their own array of tricks to achieve this, be stretching the progression thinner, producing a whole bunch of small breadcrumbs to throw at the player over time, multiple social aspects, etc. Many traditionally SP players see through such tricks or aren't affected by them since they're more used to well paced progression, whereas "the normies" fall for them more easily. Of course, there's also the people who genuinely enjoy the loop, but for any given game those people are on the fewer side.

This was your best post in a while. But if I may guide you a bit on this particular point (above)...

GAAS games do compete against one another. The one's the implement a more robust, rewarding, and quality progression system will outcompete the others. This is one of the core pillars for the "new era" multiplayer games I keep beating the drums for.

It's why open world multiplayer with extended session duration is trending up so rapidly.

 

[yurinka]

Days Gone die for this?

Instead of days gone sequel... Fuck you jimbo

No. Days Goine didn't die, it was released, ported to PC and is getting a movie. They may make a sequel somewhere in the future, or with a second team.

But according to the Days Gone directors, unlike them the internal boss at Bend wanted to make a new IP after DG instead of DG2.

It wasn't Jimbo/Hermen who prevented them from making DG2, according to the DG1 directors Sony was always were very supportive with them even after the gaming media reviews. And they greenlighted the first pitch received from Bend, the new IP. Hermen/Jimbo never received a DG2 pitch because it was blocked inside Bend.

Also, we should now have the full (confirmed) roadmap for Sony's GaaS projects. Yay? https://www.neogaf.com/threads/circ...its-3rd-week-in-market.1668038/post-268989112

1. MLB
2. Gran Turismo 7 (GT Sport already was GaaS)
3. Destiny 2 (+maybe in the future Destiny 3)
4. Firewall Ultra
5. Helldivers 2
6. Concord
7. Marathon
8. Horizon Online
9. Fairgame$
10. Firesprite's MP game (in the works for many years, shouldn't be the Twisted Metal Bloomberg said was cancelled because claimed still wasn't greenlighted)
11. Bend's new IP (its "live services" approach may be like in AC or GoT1)
12. Matter (Bungie new IP under development since at least 2018)
13. "Gummy bears" (Bungie's other new IP under development in job offers etc. if it isn't Matter)
14. Deviation's new IP (if not moved to the new SIE team built with ex-Deviation devs)
15. TLOU Online (I assume they'll rehash part of it for TLOU3)
16. London Studio's new IP

At the end of the current FY23 they'll have 5 in the market instead of the 6 originally scheduled. But well, Totoki said they no longer have the March 2026 deadline and some may release after it.

Sony will publish a few of the China Hero Project games, and maybe a handful of them could be GaaS (or not), like Convallaria. But -and I assume Sony- don't count it there.

Not included here the mobile (focused, some of them may also be released on PC or console) games under development at Neon Koi and several mobile focused Asian partners who announced a deal with Sony and could be to adapt their IPs to mobile as Sony plans to do: Tencent, Netease, MiHoyo, NC Soft, Kadokawa+Cygames or Akatsuki+Koei Tecmo.

And also not including here current and upcoming mobile games Sony has outside SIE, under Sony Music/Aniplex or Crunchyroll Games.

 

[nial]

I wouldn't say this gen's stuff is "garbage", but there was definitely a vibe and variety to 1P output during PS3 and early PS4 era that's just gone now. And I miss that vibe & variety a lot.

Also despite what people want to keep saying, no, random indies don't "make up for it".

Not accepting this slander, PS4's later years were MUCH more varied in almost every single aspect. Just compare their output in 2014/2015 to 2016/2017.

 

[CLW]

The idiot(s) responsible for the decision of o chase the zeitgeist and become the next Fortnite should go down as the second worst video game exec in history (behind Phil Spencer)

 

[Audiophile]

I'd be fine with this if the revenue was used to subsidise high quality single-player experiences.

But then I hoped the same with Respawn with Apex as a GaaS cash cow and Star Wars as a license cash cow, but we still don't have any hint of TitanFall 3.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I'd be fine with this if the revenue was used to subsidise high quality single-player experiences.

But then I hoped the same with Respawn with Apex as a GaaS cash cow and Star Wars as a license cash cow, but we still don't have any hint of TitanFall 3.

If any game is a cash cow, why would they divert funds from that towards loss making games??

Has to be a blatant lie if somebody told you that.

If a game is getting popular and making money expect similar games. Not some XYZ, totally different category of games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

1. MLB
2. Gran Turismo 7 (GT Sport already was GaaS)
3. Destiny 2 (+maybe in the future Destiny 3)
4. Firewall Ultra
5. Helldivers 2
6. Concord
7. Marathon
8. Horizon Online
9. Fairgame$
10. Firesprite's MP game (in the works for many years, shouldn't be the Twisted Metal Bloomberg said was cancelled because claimed still wasn't greenlighted)
11. Bend's new IP (its "live services" approach may be like in AC or GoT1)
12. Matter (Bungie new IP under development since at least 2018)
13. "Gummy bears" (Bungie's other new IP under development in job offers etc. if it isn't Matter)
14. Deviation's new IP (if not moved to the new SIE team built with ex-Deviation devs)
15. TLOU Online (I assume they'll rehash part of it for TLOU3)
16. London Studio's new IP

Good list. The only edits I can see...

- Bungies Matter was likely cancelled.
- Sucker Punch was hiring for an ambitious coop game in 2021.
- I suspect Insomniac and Naughty Dog still have multiplayer projects in the works, though admittedly no one knows outside of those studios.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

30 hrs into Fortnite @ $0.00 spent.
50 hrs into Helldivers 2 @ $40.00 spent
20 hrs into The Finals @ $10.00 spent

If that's "locked to Fortnite" then perhaps you can see why so many new Live Service games are blowing up.

Single player gamers have no idea what multiplayer gamers do.

I think you forgot to realize that time is also a currency, and GAAS titles are very good at locking people in WRT time investment, making them much harder to get a person away from.

Once a person has a habit to play a certain GAAS title regularly, that's going to eat at a large amount of their gaming time, for that one particular GAAS. I'd speculate the percentage of hardcore single-player/traditional gamers who put big hours into those and those who are the same with GAAS are probably similar.

However, I think the ratio of more core & casual gamers who put a lot of time into GAAS is much larger per title than those who do the same for non-GAAS titles.

 

[lughnasadh123]

This hyperventilating right after Helldivers 2 is especially juicy.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I think you forgot to realize that time is also a currency, and GAAS titles are very good at locking people in WRT time investment, making them much harder to get a person away from.

I've heard this point made on NeoGAF roughly 7,742 times. I've always responded with the following...

They ALWAYS have been. I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face: It doesn't address the continued growth and popularity of Live Service games.

No one can offer a compelling retort because the point itself is moot.

Once a person has a habit to play a certain GAAS title regularly, that's going to eat at a large amount of their gaming time, for that one particular GAAS. I'd speculate the percentage of hardcore single-player/traditional gamers who put big hours into those and those who are the same with GAAS are probably similar.

Games have reached a certain quality, depth and variety level to where they're now the platform. It's no longer the plastic box.

Many here bemoan the days of buying a $300 dollar NES and buying $60 dollar microtr... games.

Today's gamers are no different. They're just investing into a different platform. A software platform rather than a hardware platform.

However, I think the ratio of more core & casual gamers who put a lot of time into GAAS is much larger per title than those who do the same for non-GAAS titles.

The market will continue to change as GAAS becomes better and better at capturing larger and larger audiences. We're in a constant state of change.

 

[Guilty_AI]

This is why I find campaign style GAAS games to be more my style.

Eg I am playing Payday 3 right now. Most would agree its a GAAS title.

What it actually is a series of 8 Hitman style missions called heists. If anyone likes Hitman games (my group loves them), they are going to have amazing time.

No artificial elongation of playtime. You can choose to play it once, buy more story content (heists) or play at higher difficulty. Entirely upto you.

Their gameplay loop is good enough that some 20-30k players are always playing Payday 2.

I haven't played PD3 (and only a bit of 2), but if you're comparing it with Hitman i assume there's some Immersive sim elements to it, or at least the game is designed to have multiple approaches and outcomes to a single mission.

So, going back to my original post, you could make a parallel of this with a single player game like Cruelty Squad for example. Its also a game with an array of missions that can be approached in a multitude of ways, with higher difficulty levels that also results in different rewards and secrets that give the players even more tools to keep playing the game and unlock further things.

I think Ultrakill does some similar things too in terms of progression and rewards by going through certain missions multiple times, but i don't know much about that game so i couldn't tell you much.

Basically what i'm trying to say is such things aren't necessarily related to the game being GAAS or not, multiplayer or single player. It's all a matter of game design.

 

[yurinka]

- Bungies Matter was likely cancelled.

According to the IGN rumor it was cancelled in 2020 and later moved with some changes to another similar project that got cancelled in 2022.

But in 2021 Bungie said they planned to release “at least one new IP to market before 2025" (which means they were working in at least two, being one of them Marathon, even if isn't really a new IP), and they filled the Matter trademark again in 2023, which wouldn't make sense if the project would have been cancelled 3 years before as IGN rumored.

If you go to the careers section of their website they have job offers for "Destiny", "Marathon", "Incubation" and (currently only one for) "Unannounced project".

- Sucker Punch was hiring for an ambitious coop game in 2021.

Maybe the Ghost of Tsushima Legends equivalent for GoT 2.

- I suspect Insomniac and Naughty Dog still have multiplayer projects in the works, though admittedly no one knows outside of those studios.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'd be fine with this if the revenue was used to subsidise high quality single-player experiences.

Thats not happening.

Sony's biggest division is gaming and their margins the past few years are about 6%, when it used to trend at 13%. The company's foundation hinges on how well PS does. Last earnings, all it took was the ceo saying PS5 is going to miss sales forecasts and the stock dropped 5% alone. So thats why everyone can see why Sony is trying to push PC a bit to help compensate. And it's dropped a bit more since. Any big money they bank from successful GAAS games, from hiking up sub plan fees last year or whatever profits they get from PC ports are going straight to the bank. They definitely arent going into making tons more $200-300M games to fill gaps. At best, the money is used (which it seems to) towards GAAS as those are the games to fill gaps. And as one of the execs said years ago all it takes is one big GAAS to be a giant seller to cover the rest. And that is true. One giant Fortnite or FIFA making a billion per year can cover everything.

Despite revenue growing like crazy, overall gaming division profit is about the same at $2 billion per year for 6-7 years. The only time it spiked was covid when it actually hit $3 billion for one year.

 

[Guilty_AI]

GAAS games do compete against one another. The one's the implement a more robust, rewarding, and quality progression system will outcompete the others. This is one of the core pillars for the "new era" multiplayer games I keep beating the drums for.

And its why investing on them is such a enormous risk. If you want a successful GAAS - as in a game that generates paying players beyond initial purchase or download - you need to keep players engaged over the competition, and for that you usually need content to fill in that "quality progression system" which can cost huge sums of money.

This all can be more feasible if you're dealing with smaller and tighter niches, like Deep Rock Galactic or Truck Simulator. They just need to find that small, tight group of players that enjoy the core gameplay loop, give out enough to attract tourists that'll just buy the base game to play for a few dozens of hours, and keep investing accordingly.

But for a huge money bringer? The "fortnite"s and "WoW"s? The whole proccess can become a nightmare very easily. After all they naturally need a much higher number of engagement than smaller titles. That means they have to constantly keep attracting a huge number of players, keep a huge number of players engaged and paying, chugging out even bigger expansion content more frequently as to not let the large playerbase get bored, keep their eyes out for the competition so the "new thing" doesn't suck out their users. If its PvP its even worse as balancing between new and old players, newer and older content can be very difficult.

And i know you probably want to say something along the lines of "only the best shall rise!" or "you need to have a top-tier game to enter the market", and you'd be right. Its hard, even harder considering many games already established themselves in the market, taking up user time and with a warchest ready to invest in any direction like new popular game modes or disney partnerships that newcomers won't be able to afford.

What's hard is risky, and investors aren't always happy with risks. That's the point. That's why you won't see some "GAAS takeover" as you so vehemently believe. It's by all means and purposes a gold rush, and the gold has been running out for a while now.

It's why open world multiplayer with extended session duration is trending up so rapidly.

Where?

 

[SmokedMeat]

Good. Hopefully this is their next “Helldivers”.

 

[scydrex]

Then it will be 🗑

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I haven't played PD3 (and only a bit of 2), but if you're comparing it with Hitman i assume there's some Immersive sim elements to it, or at least the game is designed to have multiple approaches and outcomes to a single mission.

So, going back to my original post, you could make a parallel of this with a single player game like Cruelty Squad for example. Its also a game with an array of missions that can be approached in a multitude of ways, with higher difficulty levels that also results in different rewards and secrets that give the players even more tools to keep playing the game and unlock further things.

I think Ultrakill does some similar things too in terms of progression and rewards by going through certain missions multiple times, but i don't know much about that game so i couldn't tell you much.

Basically what i'm trying to say is such things aren't necessarily related to the game being GAAS or not, multiplayer or single player. It's all a matter of game design.

Yeah, its open ended. You can approach as you see fit.

It really varies from game to game. Some of them are well designed and IMO offer more fun than playing alone. A lot of times one of my friends screw up in Payday and entire group is like “NOOB, what a noob”.

 

[Tomi]

so one more dead studio

Disaster

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And its why investing on them is such a enormous risk. If you want a successful GAAS - as in a game that generates paying players beyond initial purchase or download - you need to keep players engaged over the competition, and for that you usually need content to fill in that "quality progression system" which can cost huge sums of money.

This all can be more feasible if you're dealing with smaller and tighter niches, like Deep Rock Galactic or Truck Simulator. They just need to find that small, tight group of players that enjoy the core gameplay loop, give out enough to attract tourists that'll just buy the base game to play for a few dozens of hours, and keep investing accordingly.

But for a huge money bringer? The "fortnite"s and "WoW"s? The whole proccess can become a nightmare very easily. After all they naturally need a much higher number of engagement than smaller titles. That means they have to constantly keep attracting a huge number of players, keep a huge number of players engaged and paying, chugging out even bigger expansion content more frequently as to not let the large playerbase get bored, keep their eyes out for the competition so the "new thing" doesn't suck out their users. If its PvP its even worse as balancing between new and old players, newer and older content can be very difficult.

And i know you probably want to say something along the lines of "only the best shall rise!" or "you need to have a top-tier game to enter the market", and you'd be right. Its hard, even harder considering many games already established themselves in the market, taking up user time and with a warchest ready to invest in any direction like new popular game modes or disney partnerships that newcomers won't be able to afford.

What's hard is risky, and investors aren't always happy with risks. That's the point. That's why you won't see some "GAAS takeover" as you so vehemently believe. It's by all means and purposes a gold rush, and the gold has been running out for a while now.

I think we generally agree that PvP is riskier. I think you blow the complexity and difficulty completely out of proportion for the following reason...

I could give you numerous examples but let's look at PUBG. It's still wickedly successful 6 years after launch.

What is so complex about PUBG that AAA studios couldn't grapple with? The progression system in PUBG is very simple (start with nothing, loot + kill to strengthen your character over the next 40 minutes). Such a simple and effective system can, and is being studied by everyone in the space.

It's not a conundrum.

If you look at todays top games, most of which are PvP, the vast majority of them started from small teams who stumbled into the progression era. Telling a AAA studio that PUBG, Rust, Fortnite etc is too complex for them is laughable. And here's the thing...

Big publishers don't agree with you. They agree with me.

Where?

Pong - Single screen.
2D fighters - Step to the left for 5 seconds, or to the right direction 5 seconds.
Arena shooters - Run around small maps with 11 other players.
Battle Royale Run around large maps with 99 other players.

That's why I keep telling you. Survival games are the next logical progression for PvP. Sony Bend making an open world multiplayer game that builds off of Dayd Gones systems is to be expected.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

It's in the name: bend

 

[Guilty_AI]

I think we generally agree that PvP is riskier. I think you blow the complexity and difficulty completely out of proportion for the following reason...

I could give you numerous examples but let's look at PUBG. It's still wickedly successful 6 years after launch.

What is so complex about PUBG that AAA studios couldn't grapple with? The progression system in PUBG is very simple (start with nothing, loot + kill to strengthen your character over the next 40 minutes). Such a simple and effective system can, and is being studied by everyone in the space.

It's not a conundrum.

If you look at todays top games, most of which are PvP, the vast majority of them started from small teams who stumbled into the progression era. Telling a AAA studio that PUBG, Rust, Fortnite etc is too complex for them is laughable. And here's the thing...

Big publishers don't agree with you. They agree with me.

PUBG had the advantage of being the de facto first player in a genre that was popular, not to mention it also appeared around the time of the rising popularity of streaming. And even then it wasn't able to stay as the dominant one. Just making another PUBG today won't cut it, they also need to give PUBG players a reason to get out of their comfort zone and stay with them.

Like i said, the gold is running out.

Pong - Single screen.
2D fighters - Step to the left for 5 seconds, or to the right direction 5 seconds.
Arena shooters - Run around small maps with 11 other players.
Battle Royale Run around large maps with 99 other players.

That's why I keep telling you. Survival games are the next logical progression for PvP. Sony Bend making an open world multiplayer game that builds off of Dayd Gones systems is to be expected.

You mean stuff like Rust and Valheim? I mean, we saw tons of developers try their hands at those before, in fact they're a very old genre that grew in popularity back in the early 2010s with Minecraft, Project Zomboid, Terraria, etc; to the point it became a meme. Not saying there can't be successful new titles in the genre, especially if they have unique takes like Palworld, but this ship has sailed a long time ago already.

Or rather Battle royale was born out of MP survival games, more specifically the idea was taken from Minecraft Hunger Games mode. I think you're getting your historical progression wrong here.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

PUBG had the advantage of being the de facto first player in a genre that was popular, not to mention it also appeared around the time of the rising popularity of streaming. And even then it wasn't able to stay as the dominant one. Just making another PUBG today won't cut it, they also need to give PUBG players a reason to get out of their comfort zone and stay with them.

Weren't we discussing the concept of progression in multiplayer? This seems like a radical swerve.

Like i said, the gold is running out.

All the industries biggest companies seem to disagree.

You mean stuff like Rust and Valheim? I mean, we saw tons of developers try their hands at those before, in fact they're a very old genre that grew in popularity back in the early 2010s with Minecraft, Project Zomboid, Terraria, etc; to the point it became a meme.

Think about it. Rust, Valheim, Terraria, Minecraft and Project Zomboid all support my position. They all started out as hobby grade games. They all became uber successful because they've mined (unknowingly or not) great game design.

Todays big publishers are building these types of games using technology, resources, and knowledge that make those devs envious.

Not saying there can't be successful new titles in the genre, especially if they have unique takes like Palworld, but this ship has sailed a long time ago already.

Good luck if you think the ship has sailed on "open world multiplayer". This is borderline as absurd as thinking the PC had "its day" before the Apple II.

Or rather Battle royale was born out of MP survival games, more specifically the idea was taken from Minecraft Hunger Games mode. I think you're getting your historical progression wrong here.

The order doesn't matter. The larger trend is what's important.

The most popular multiplayer games over the last 40 years are seeing three vital patterns...

Maps are getting larger.
Server populations are growing.
Progression is getting more robust.

Keep paying attention to this stuff. I will act as your sherpa into the new era of design.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

According to the IGN rumor it was cancelled in 2020 and later moved with some changes to another similar project that got cancelled in 2022.

But in 2021 Bungie said they planned to release “at least one new IP to market before 2025" (which means they were working in at least two, being one of them Marathon, even if isn't really a new IP), and they filled the Matter trademark again in 2023, which wouldn't make sense if the project would have been cancelled 3 years before as IGN rumored.

If you go to the careers section of their website they have job offers for "Destiny", "Marathon", "Incubation" and (currently only one for) "Unannounced project".


Maybe the Ghost of Tsushima Legends equivalent for GoT 2.

Excellent response Yurinka.

Do you think Bungie referred to Marathon as it's "new IP before 2025"? I know it's not a new IP but perhaps there was a misspeak or misinterpretation?

I just don't think Bungie has another project nearing completion alongside Marathon. Could be wrong.

 

[Solarstrike]

SONY should buy the Road Rash IP off EA and let Bend have a go at revitalizing the series

 

[Sanepar]

Probably a crap gaas with purple hair characters. Next studio Sony will close, this is doa.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Weren't we discussing the concept of progression in multiplayer? This seems like a radical swerve.

You brought PUBG up, i merely pointed out the game was "luckier" than others, thus managed to capitalize on a demand before anyone else could put out their game. Whoever makes their own BR today will have to face the invevitable question "Why should i invest my time on YOUR BR instead of PUBG or Fortnite, which have more content and active players?"

All the industries biggest companies seem to disagree.

And now they're laying off people and shutting down tons of projects.

Think about it. Rust, Valheim, Terraria, Minecraft and Project Zomboid all support my position. They all started out as hobby grade games. They all became uber successful because they've mined (unknowingly or not) great game design.

Todays big publishers are building these types of games using technology, resources, and knowledge that make those devs envious.

Eh, questionable.

Good luck if you think the ship has sailed on "open world multiplayer". This is borderline as absurd as thinking the PC had "its day" before the Apple II.

Of course there's still public, just like there's still public for boomer shooters. What i mean is that whoever tries to break into that space has to bring more to the table than just "multiplayer open world survival crafting" if they want to be big.

The order doesn't matter. The larger trend is what's important.

The most popular multiplayer games over the last 40 years are seeing three vital patterns...

Maps are getting larger.
Server populations are growing.
Progression is getting more robust.

Keep paying attention to this stuff. I will act as your sherpa into the new era of design.

Lets see... Elite Dangerous from 2016:

Map size: the entire bloody Milky Way, 400 billion star systems and you can land, drive and walk on many of the planets, not to mention an insane amount of space stations where you can also walk around in.
Server: consist of thousands of players all doing different jobs, affecting the game world and economy in real time, with an overarching plot going behind the scenes that evolves the game along with it in true GAAS fashion.
The progression: very robust, going from cheap equipment and a small ship to all the way to multi-crew powerful ships, faction alliances and the ability to explore the universe with much more ease

How many players it gets daily? Less than 10k....

You think i'm not paying attention to this stuff? The kind of games you're describing have been around from before people even knew what Battle Royale or Survival were. Ultima Online began the trend nearly 30 years ago and now the genre is dominated by World of Warcraft released in 2004 and Final Fantasy 14 released in 2013. Whoever thinks its a good idea to release your "MP game with large map and robust progression" today better be ready to face these behemoths with over a decade worth of content.

 

[simpatico]

Hear me out: a looter shooter when you play as Mary Jane Watson and her best GFs from college. Parker’s sheer incompetence and bull headedness prevented him from saving the day, so MJ and friends show up to save the city.

 

[T0minator]

The amount of negativity from those job postings is kind of crazy lol

Let them reveal the game and at least before you think the doom and gloom already. Bend is a great studio, whatever they make has more promise just based off their history

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You brought PUBG up, i merely pointed out the game was "luckier" than others, thus managed to capitalize on a demand before anyone else could put out their game. Whoever makes their own BR today will have to face the invevitable question "Why should i invest my time on YOUR BR instead of PUBG or Fortnite, which have more content and active players?"

1. You brought up how it's difficult to implement progression in PvP.

2. I bring up PUBG as an example to illustrate how simple it is.

3. You say PUBG was successful for off topic reasons. (Off topic)

4. Progression in PvP isn't as difficult as you suggest. (On topic)

And now they're laying off people and shutting down tons of projects.

The whole industry is going through waves of layoffs, as it always does. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Inhale exhale is healthy for all industries.

Eh, questionable.

Not really. Helldivers 2 is open world MP. Concord will be open world MP. Sony Bend is making an open world MP game. This isn't luck. This is clear trend progression.

Of course there's still public, just like there's still public for boomer shooters. What i mean is that whoever tries to break into that space has to bring more to the table than just "multiplayer open world survival crafting" if they want to be big.

Agreed. This is partially the reason why multiplayer is taking over. The only way to thrive is by making a superior product. SP suffers from a much slower progress structure where mediocre titles can succeed if they're positioned in a good release window.

Lets see... Elite Dangerous from 2016:

Map size: the entire bloody Milky Way, 400 billion star systems and you can land, drive and walk on many of the planets, not to mention an insane amount of space stations where you can also walk around in.
Server: consist of thousands of players all doing different jobs, affecting the game world and economy in real time, with an overarching plot going behind the scenes that evolves the game along with it in true GAAS fashion.
The progression: very robust, going from cheap equipment and a small ship to all the way to multi-crew powerful ships, faction alliances and the ability to explore the universe with much more ease

How many players it gets daily? Less than 10k....

You're trying to cherry pick to obfuscate from the glaringly obvious trend but in reality Elite Dangerous is a successful game that wasn't possible 20 years ago. It's success can be attributed, in part, to the reasons listed.

You think i'm not paying attention to this stuff? The kind of games you're describing have been around from before people even knew what Battle Royale or Survival were. Ultima Online began the trend nearly 30 years ago and now the genre is dominated by World of Warcraft released in 2004 and Final Fantasy 14 released in 2013. Whoever thinks its a good idea to release your "MP game with large map and robust progression" today better be ready to face these behemoths with over a decade worth of content.

Ultima Online did not appeal to console gamers, and therefore it was a much smaller success than todays hit GAAS titles. That structure, with better production values, and rough edges sanded off, would do quite well in todays market.

In the mid 90s, we were transitioning from 2D fighters to arena shooters. Small to mid size.

You used to believe Live Service was a "lottery ticket". You're learning the fallacy in that.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Zero chance of me being interested or buying it. I do not do live service games. I do not have the time. I do not like what they are designed to do. I do not like how they misrepresent what games are supposed to do & be to new generations.

 

[DragonNCM]

Just look PS3/PS4 generation games....masterpieces: Uncharted series, The last of Us I & II, GOW reboot, Days gone, Horizon, Bloodborn, Spider-man, Death Stranding, Gravity rush I & II....
And now we have remaster of remake of remaster shit & some sequels of last gen IPS & all other GAS crap no one wants & no one asks for.....I'm disappointed in direction where Sony is going.
Looks like next gen we will get all android crap pay to win games with glorified graphics & raytracing shit because clearly there is where money are & looks like my gaming hobby will about to end.

 

[Guilty_AI]

1. You brought up how it's difficult to implement progression in PvP.

2. I bring up PUBG as an example to illustrate how simple it is.

3. I say PUBG was in a better place than others to attract and keep players into the game, being the "first" of its kind and all. (On topic)

4. Can't be replicated by newer publishers unless they have more to show than PUBG (also on topic)

Not really. Helldivers 2 is open world MP.

Erm... no? There's not even a real map, just instance-based randomly generated levels. Not much different from Roguelites or something like Deep Rock Galactic.

SP suffers from a much slower progress structure where mediocre titles can succeed if they're positioned in a good release window.

Its funny because that actually makes SP more worthy investiments. Thanks for supporting my point.

And what do you mean "slower progress structure"? If anything they're faster. Like i said, there's no need to keep players engaged to indeterminate amounts of time unlike GAAS, thus no need to stretch small pieces of progression to their utter limit.

You're trying to cherry pick to obfuscate from the glaringly obvious trend but in reality Elite Dangerous is a successful game that wasn't possible 20 years ago. It's success can be attributed, in part, to the reasons listed.

A successful niche game you mean.

Ultima Online did not appeal to console gamers, and therefore it was a much smaller success than todays hit GAAS titles. That structure, with better production values, and rough edges sanded off, would do quite well in todays market.

In the mid 90s, we were transitioning from 2D fighters to arena shooters. Small to mid size.

You used to believe Live Service was a "lottery ticket". You're learning the fallacy in that.

Why you're ignoring the newer more modern 2000s and 2010s examples and de facto market leaders i gave? Are you doing it on purpose? Is it a defense mechanism to having your point swatted down?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

3. I say PUBG was in a better place than others to attract and keep players into the game, being the "first" of its kind and all. (On topic)

4. Can't be replicated by newer publishers unless they have more to show than PUBG (also on topic)

Agree to disagree.

Erm... no? There's not even a real map, just instance-based randomly generated levels. Not much different from Roguelites or something like Deep Rock Galactic.

Wait, are we really saying Helldivers 2 isn't open world? Come on man, words have to have meaning. This is shameful.

Its funny because that actually makes SP more worthy investiments. Thanks for supporting my point.

And what do you mean "slower progress structure"? If anything they're faster. Like i said, there's no need to keep players engaged to indeterminate amounts of time unlike GAAS, thus no need to stretch small pieces of progression to their utter limit.

You already admitted that in order to succeed on the Live Service space, you have to do something different. That creates an environment for creative risk and bar raising. In the SP space, that incentive isn't there which means you can release an inferior version of Resident Evil 4 (considered the best SH game) and still achieve commercial success. This breeds complacency.

A successful niche game you mean.

121 million dollars on Steam alone. Add in the console numbers and you've successfully attempted, but ultimately failed, to move the goalpost on the word "niche".

Why you're ignoring the newer more modern 2000s and 2010s examples and de facto market leaders i gave? Are you doing it on purpose? Is it a defense mechanism to having your point swatted down?

No. You're just cherry picking exemplars to ignore the clear trend that's occurring in front of everyone's face.

Again, you were a "Live Service is luck" person not too long ago. We're about to watch a series of sequential hits. Get your hard hat on.

 

[Humdinger]

Well, that's disappointing. Bend is a single player developer. Isn't this ND all over again, without the woke? Why focus their energies on something they have no experience doing?